What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
482 Comments
- lukifer, on 11/05/2007, -33/+360This is a brilliant idea. The judiciary seems to be our only hope left to maintain checks-and-balances, since Congress still can't find a spine. We could skip impeachment and go straight to indictment; the evidence is damn near overwhelming at this point.
- macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -20/+179The problem I see is that at any given time 1000 people could be gathered to serve a warrant on any president they didn't agree with. I think it is a brilliant way to bring attention to items, but you would need a million man march to bring an arrest warrant on the president.
- Shigglyboo, on 10/10/2007, -15/+157"Police had already set up a protest pen" = WTF?
how do you arrest people who are trying to arrest someone for breaking the law? world has turned upside down I say. - Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -22/+153Why the ***** would over 1,000 protesters allow a handful of guards to stop them? ***** take over that *****!
I'm sorry, but if a mob of 1,000+ people REALLY want to get into a building, they could. - notque, on 10/10/2007, -11/+108Noam Chomsky -
The invasion of Iraq was about as clear-cut a case of aggression than you can imagine. In fact, by the Nuremberg principles, if you read them carefully, the U.S. war against Nicaragua was a crime of aggression for which Ronald Reagan should have been tried. But, it’s inconceivable; you can’t even mention it in the West. And the reason is our radical denial of the most elementary moral truisms. We just flatly reject them. We don’t even think we reject them, and that’s even worse than rejecting them outright.
If we were able to say to ourselves, ‘Look, we are totally immoral, we don’t accept elementary moral principles,’ that would be a kind of respectable position in a certain way. But, when we sink to the level where we cannot even perceive that we’re violating elementary moral principles and international law, that’s pretty bad. But, that’s the nature of the intellectual culture--not just in the United States--but in powerful societies everywhere. - h4ppydotcom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+74We had 1 million people (in London) march against the war in Iraq, but it didn't make any difference.
- Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+75The "protest pen" is the place where protesters are allowed to do their protesting - usually far away from anyone or anything having to do with the event they're trying to reach participants and spectators of. It's a way for the right to free speech to be upheld - by only allowing certain speech to be made where no one else will hear it.
All in the name of security, of course. Indeed, it is security - it secures the propaganda of the powerful over the voice of the citizen. - Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+68If a mob of 1000 people wanted to get into a building, yes, *some* of them could, provided that a lot of them would be willing to stand their ground and be shot.
As much as people in the US complain about a lot of things, there's not a whole lot that any of us would stand in a public street and get shot over. We are too mollified.
Maybe we could outsource our protesting to Burma. - HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -6/+69There is no accountability in Washington. If you are going to charge Bush with "War Crimes", you are going to have to charge the 4/5ths of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House that agreed to the Iraq War as well.
- Novion76, on 10/10/2007, -13/+73remember remember the fifth of november
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -9/+62Noam Chomsky -
Let’s take the Iraq war. There’s libraries of material arguing about the war, debating it, asking ‘What should we do?’, this and that, and the other thing. Now, try to find a sentence somewhere that says that ‘carrying out a war of aggression is the supreme international crime, which differs from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows’ (paraphrasing from Nuremberg). Try to find that somewhere. I mean, you can find it. I’ve written about it, and you can find a couple other dozen people who have written about it in the world. But, is it part of the intellectual culture? Can you find it in a newspaper, or in a journal; in Congress; any public discourse; anything that’s part of the general exchange of knowledge and ideas? I mean, do students study it in school? Do they have courses where they teach students that ‘to carry out a war of aggression is the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows’?
So, for example, if sectarian warfare is a horrible atrocity, as it is, who’s responsible? By the principles of Nuremberg, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice -- they’re responsible for sectarian warfare because they carried out the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows. Try and find somebody who points that out. You can’t. Because, our dominant intellectual culture accepts as legitimate our crushing anybody we like.
Take Iran. Both political parties and practically the whole press accept it as legitimate and, in fact, honorable, that ‘all options are on the table’, presumably including nuclear weapons, to quote Hilary Clinton and everyone else. ‘All options are on the table’ means we threaten war. Well, there’s something called the U.N. Charter, which outlaws ‘the threat or use of force’ in international affairs. Does anybody care? Actually, I saw one op-ed somewhere by Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist close to the government, who pointed out that threats are serious violations of international law. But that’s so rare that when you find it it’s like finding a diamond in a pile of hay. It’s not part of the culture. We’re allowed to threaten anyone we want--and to attack anyone we want. And, when a person grows up and acts in a culture like that, they’re culpable in a sense, but the culpability is much broader.
I was just reading a couple days ago a review of a new book by Steven Miles, a medical doctor and bioethicist, who ran through 35,000 pages of documents he got from the Freedom of Information Act on the torture in Abu Ghraib. And the question that concerned him is, ‘What were the doctors doing during all of this?’ All through those torture sessions there were doctors, nurses, behavioral scientists and others who were organizing them. What were they doing when this torture was going on? Well, you go through the detailed record and it turns out that they were designing and improving it. Just like Nazi doctors.
Robert Jay Lifton did a big study on Nazi doctors. He points out in connection with the Nazi doctors that, in a way, it’s not those individual doctors who had the final guilt, it was a culture and a society which accepted torture and criminal activities as legitimate. The same is true with the tortures at Abu Ghraib. Just to focus on them as if they’re somehow terrible people is just a serious mistake. They’re coming out of a culture that regards this as legitimate. Maybe there are some excesses you don’t really do but torture in interrogation is considered legitimate.
There’s a big debate now on, ‘Who’s an enemy combatant?’; a big technical debate. Suppose we invade another country and we capture somebody who’s defending the country against our invasion: what do you mean to call them an ‘enemy combatant’? If some country invaded the United States and let’s say you were captured throwing a rock at one of the soldiers, would it be legitimate to send you to the equivalent of Guantanamo, and then have a debate about whether you’re a ‘lawful’ or ‘unlawful’ combatant? The whole discussion is kind of, like, off in outer space somewhere. But, in a culture which accepts that we own and rule the world, it’s reasonable.
But, also, we should go back to the roots of the intellectual or moral culture, not just to the individuals directly involved. - fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -2/+54True, and if a few million peoplre REALLY wanted to overthrow a violent oppressive government, they could (without the help of some other country on the other side of the planet).
- screamthenrun, on 10/10/2007, -20/+67this is kinda a cool protest idea... but there is a technical flaw Quote from article: "The idea of citizen's arrest has its roots in common law, and allows for any citizen to execute an arrest on someone who they witness committing a felony offense." i seriously doubt that any of them literally "witnessed" Bush doing anything... nice try tho
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+48Civil Disobedience is a reasonable and rational response to war crimes.
- Boing, on 10/10/2007, -56/+98I was hoping for the follow up story:
1000 idiots rush the White House. Bullets fly.
Darwin wins x1000. - Frankenbeans, on 10/10/2007, -8/+49Great idea...execution might be a bit more difficult, especially if you don't like rubber bullets and tasers.
- Treshnell, on 10/10/2007, -5/+44The 1000 could, but the weakness is the one who says to himself that he's going to get hurt or in serious trouble and stops. Almost everyone takes the part of a one in a crowd of 1000.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+37I see nothing wrong with it, so long as it is not a false arrest. We can't expect them to hold each other accountable in DC anymore, so it's up to us as citizens to arrest and convict them ourselves. If that means government slows to a standstill because 90% of them have a long list of criminal offenses, so be it because by the time the smoke clears, we'll perhaps at LONG last have a government that speaks FOR us instead of TO us.
- Zandarrr, on 10/10/2007, -7/+41This pisses me off so much. Here we have 1,000+ people attempting to arrest our President for unspeakable war crimes and crimes against humanity while Congress and other elected officials are just sitting with their thumbs up their asses. "Oh yeah... it feels really good right there." I say impeach our entire government.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+36He isn't a communist. He's a libertarian socialist. He was against communism and certainly Bolshevism as he's written many times. You can smear anyone, but to counter their arguments in the sign of rational debate.
- mikewhite314, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35you'd have to wait until you had an opportunity to shake his hand, and then try not to get shot.
- oldman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34What is being suggested is NOT 1000 people arresting a president they don't like, but 1000 people arresting a president who has flaunted his contempt for the law, the country and its people for nearly 6 years.
- Wesside, on 10/10/2007, -8/+41I honestly hope you guys accomplish getting him out of office.
-Canadian - archistudent, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30I am willing to die for my country. I accept your challenge.
Secondly, it's not blind hatred I have for this president, it's pure hatred, thoroughly researched, and fully defendable.
Thirdly, I am not all talk. I walk the walk, and I walk it everyday. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -9/+38Funny, the New York Daily News says there were only 400 people there:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/25/2007-09 ...
Is ROGUEGOVERNMENT.COM playing fast and loose with the truth - isn't that what they claim Bush is doing - isn't that called hypocrisy?
I am not sure mob rule is the best form of government. - Pritchard, on 11/05/2007, -6/+33Alright. We managed to get tens of thousands of demonstrators at the White House this month protesting against the War. Who of us will make the stand and lead a citizen arrest? What about defensive police officers, though? They can't be charged as criminals for upholding their part of the law. Is it just to get past them, or to detain them if necessary?
- mrbeagle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29The massacre of 1000 unarmed American civilians would completely damn the administration. I say go for it
- wolfpack32k, on 10/18/2007, -3/+28Even if Bush was arrested he'd probably find a way to pardon himself, I mean, its not like Congress would stop him
- Leomarth, on 10/18/2007, -1/+25Protestors Pens, Free Speech Zones.
Sure, nobody has "lost" their right to protest. Only had their right redefined and abridged. - AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25So did the American Revolution.
- BelXul, on 10/18/2007, -3/+26For years, people have been saying, "Why don't you people actually get off your asses and actually DO something about this guy if you hate him so much?" Well, regardless of what these thousand people think, I have to give them credit for actually getting off their asses to do something for once, unlike so many others who whine and cry that things are getting worse.
- TWINFM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25The fact that she calls him a communist as an insult total discredits her. Here's a quote, "Ayn Rand is a ho-bag; a hypocritical, elitist ho-bag" -Me
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -7/+29Aggression is the supreme war crime which entails all crimes that extend from it. We "witnessed" his order for it.
- Protonz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24We aren't talking 1000 Spartans.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -14/+35Noam Chomsky on Nuremberg
Nuremberg is an interesting precedent.
The Nuremberg case is a very interesting precedent. Of all the tribunals that have taken place, from then until today Nuremberg is, I think, the most serious by far. But, nevertheless, it was very seriously flawed. And it was recognized to be. When Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor, wrote about it, he recognized that it was flawed, and it was so for a number of fundamental reasons. For one thing, the Nazi war criminals were being tried for crimes that had not yet been declared to be crimes. So, it was ex post facto. ‘We’re now declaring these things you did to be crimes.’ That is already questionable.
Secondly, the choice of what was considered a crime was based on a very explicit criterion, namely, denial of the principle of universality. In other words, something was called a crime at Nuremberg if they did it and we didn’t do it.
So, for example, the bombing of urban concentrations was not considered a crime. The bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and so on -- those aren’t crimes. Why? Because we did them. So, therefore, it’s not a crime. In fact, Nazi war criminals who were charged were able to escape prosecution when they could show that the Americans and the British did the same thing they did. Admiral Doenitz, a submarine commander who was involved in all kinds of war crimes, called in the defense a high official in the British admiralty and, I think, Admiral Nimitz from the United States, who testified that, ‘Yeah, that’s the kind of thing we did.’ And, therefore, they weren’t sentenced for these crimes. Doenitz was absolved. And that’s the way it ran through. Now, that’s a very serious flaw. Nevertheless, of all the tribunals, that’s the most serious one.
When Chief Justice Jackson, chief counsel for the prosecution, spoke to the tribunal and explained to them the importance of what they were doing, he said, to paraphrase, that: ‘We are handing these defendants a poisoned chalice, and if we ever sip from it we must be subject to the same punishments, otherwise this whole trial is a farce.’ Well, you can look at the history from then on, and we’ve sipped from the poisoned chalice many times, but it’s never been considered a crime. So, that means we are saying that trial was a farce. - thunderer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23Congratulations, the FBI now considers you a "person of interest"!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23I would think pepper spray and attack dogs would be a bigger concern than tasers.
- maaddmax, on 10/10/2007, -17/+36You gotta be ***** kidding me right? Peace? There was no ***** peace before or after we invaded...
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21There is currently no indictment, that's what we are working towards. An indictment doesn't have any merit on the question of if something is true or not. That takes you working out on your own, and I have replied through this thread with many expressions of the case concerning his war crimes.
- EricSchC1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
Rand detested many prominent liberal and conservative politicians of her time, including prominent anti-Communists, such as Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, Hubert Humphrey, and Joseph McCarthy.[41] She opposed US involvement in World War I, World War II[42] and the Korean War, although she also strongly denounced pacifism: "When a nation resorts to war, it has some purpose, rightly or wrongly, something to fight for – and the only justifiable purpose is self-defense."[43] She opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, "If you want to see the ultimate, suicidal extreme of altruism, on an international scale, observe the war in Vietnam – a war in which American soldiers are dying for no purpose whatever," - leunghoi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17So, we need lawyers to tell us what's morally correct? We haven't sunken this low, right?
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18I believe Bill Clinton was the first president to use "protest zones"
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17It's international law.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18It's our job. We are the ones to blame. Governments are violent institutions that do the work of some local structure of power. This is true of every government, ours is no different. And the way to fix it is the same across the globe as well.
Our job is the same job as an illiterate Haitian peasant. The only different is they don't just ask "what do I do", and the violence they suffer is much greater. - dasdef, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16oh man this would make an awesome headline
- sethosayher, on 10/18/2007, -4/+19If only they succeeded...what a triumph it would be.
- BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Easy. I stopped watching TV, the translator of those radio waves.
- inactive, on 10/18/2007, -1/+14The serpent will never see the inside of a courtroom again.
- archistudent, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Noctum,
Pay attention:
Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
The UN Charter states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...". War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.
Bush attacked Iraq based on false pretenses and without UN permission. He, therefore, violated the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are grounds for impeachment. (via: http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.htm ... - TheGuruStud, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16By sheer numbers and our own weapons. If we had 10,000+ ppl bum rush any event that Dubya is attending, we could subdue everyone. They don't have enough ammo or man power to stop that (for a short period of time). In a matter of minutes you could kill every guard and done have bushies head cut off. Next step would be to bum rush the white house with 1 million+ and explosives. Burn it to the ground if necessary.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 486 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is